Silencers Could Make Shootings Worse?

In my continued search for better hearing protection I’ve found nothing as accomplished for this task as a good suppressor.

Yesterday an article was written against the ASA, the NRA, and various manufacturers. The argument being made is a “silencer” could have made the mass shooting worse as the gun would have been quiet. I can make a lot of arguments on how all sorts of items could have been used for an illegal purpose. Conjuring fantasy possibilities shouldn’t lend to laws made for banning items on potential use. To be clear, the shooter would likely not have been able to legally own one on a background check (plus, currently the background check to purchase one legally is up to eight months), aside from not being legally old enough to purchase one. So it would have had to have been taken from a legal owner’s possession, like the firearms used; being 20 he was not old enough to buy those either.

Should someone not be allowed to own something because someone might steal it?